What do you think?
Rate this book
خاطرات سقراطی
Memorabilia (Ἀπομνημονεύματα) is a collection of Socratic dialogs by Xenophon, a student of Socrates. The lengthiest & most famous of his Socratic writings, the Memorabilia is essentially a defense of Socrates, differing from both his Apology of Socrates to the Jury & Plato's Apology mainly in that the Apologies present Socrates as defending himself before the jury, whereas the former presents Xenophon's own defense of Socrates, offering edifying examples of Socrates' conversations & activities along with occasional commentary from Xenophon. Memorabilia is also known by its Latin title Commentarii & a variety of English translations (Recollections, Memoirs, Conversations of Socrates, etc). The Memorabilia was probably completed after 371 BC, as one passage (III.5) appears to assume the military situation after the Spartan defeat at the battle of Leuctra in that year.
216 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 371
824 people are currently reading
8319 people want to read
About the author
Xenophon
2,420 books479 followersXenophon (Ancient Greek Ξενοφῶν, Modern Greek Ξενοφώντας; ca. 431 – 355 BC), son of Gryllus, of the deme Erchia of Athens, was a soldier, mercenary and a contemporary and admirer of Socrates. He is known for his writings on the history of his own times, preserving the sayings of Socrates, and the life of ancient Greece.
Historical and biographical works:
Anabasis (or The Persian Expedition)
Cyropaedia
Hellenica
Agesilaus
Socratic works and dialogues:
Memorabilia
Oeconomicus
Symposium
Apology
Hiero
Short treatises:
On Horsemanship
The Cavalry General
Hunting with Dogs
Ways and Means
Constitution of Sparta
Historical and biographical works:
Anabasis (or The Persian Expedition)
Cyropaedia
Hellenica
Agesilaus
Socratic works and dialogues:
Memorabilia
Oeconomicus
Symposium
Apology
Hiero
Short treatises:
On Horsemanship
The Cavalry General
Hunting with Dogs
Ways and Means
Constitution of Sparta
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 175 reviews
September 23, 2015
دلت را از چه راه بدست آورم؟
سقراط گفت : هروقت نیازمند من شدی، راه آن را خود کشف خواهی کرد
سقراط یا در اصل سوکراتس انسانی بزرگ و والا بوده که انسانیت می تواند به وجودش فخر بفروشد
مردی که در این جهان مرگ را جرعه جرعه نوشید تا نه مثه گالیله مجبور شود سخنانی که به آن ایمان داشت را نفی کند
و نه بمانند خیلی از انسان ها دو دستی به سال های پایان عمرش بچسبد که چندان ارزشی برای زیستن ندارد
:دوستی در یکی از استاتوس ها کامنت جالبی گذاشته بودند
There is a funny claim that Xenophon's Socrates is closer to the real socrates than that of Plato's because Xenophon was not smart and imaginative enough to make up A Socrates
مطالبی از کتاب می آورم تا دوستانی که علاقمند هستند بیشتر با سقراط کسنوفون آشنا شوند
در ابتدا بگویم که سقراط به خدایان باور داشت و حتی ادعا می کرد که ذات الهی با علائم و اشاراتی به او فرمان می دهد که چه باید بکند و چه نباید بکند
اما در کارهایی که در حیطه خرد بود همواره می کوشید از منطق پیروی کند و آنرا به بخت و اقبال وانمی گذاشت
وی مردی بسیار پرهیزکار بود و به هرموگنس پسر هیپونیکوس گفته بود در همه عمر کاری نکرده ام جز اینکه عدل را از ظلم تشخیص بدهم و موافق عدل عمل کنم و از ظلم دوری بجویم
وی دوستانش را به خویشتن داری دعوت و از لگام گسیختگی سخت نهی می کرد
البته وی لذت بردن از زندگی را نفی نمی کرد و حتی به دیگران می آموخت که
:چگونه میتوان بیشتر لذت برد
آیا معتقدید که آزادی گرانبهاترین ثروت هاست؟
به عقیده شما کسی که اسیر هوس های تن است و بدین جهت از کار نیک ناتوان، آیا آزاد است؟
آیا مردمانی که بر نفس خود تسلط ندارند، تنها از کار نیک ناتوانند، یا علاوه بر این ناچارند که بدترین کارها را انجام دهند؟
سخت ترین اسارت ها تسلط نداشتن بر نفس خویش است
لگام گسیختگی آدمی را از دانایی ،که بزرگترین موهبت هاست، باز می دارد
و همچنین نمی گذارد که در برابر گرسنگی و تشنگی و آرزوی برآوردن شهوات نفسانی
پایداری کنیم، حال آنکه می دانیم خوردن و نوشیدن و خوابیدن و برآوردن شهوت هنگامی براستی لذت بخش است که چندی در برابر آنها پایداری شود. بنابراین لگام گسیختگی ما را از آن لذایذ باز می دارد، ولی تسلط بر نفس سبب می شود که بر شهوات عنان بزنیم تا تسکین آنها مایه لذت و شادمانی گردد
سقراط خود غذا چندان بکار می برد که خوردن برایش مایه لذت باشد، و تا گرسنه نمی شد دست به طعام نمی برد.از همه آشامیدنی ها لذت می برد، زیرا تا تشنه نمی شد چیزی نمی نوشید
علوم در نظر سقراط
سقراط علوم کاربردی مانند یاد گرفتن فنون نظامی برای دفاع از وطن و پیشه ای را یاد گرفتن برای امرار معاش را واجب می دانست و درمورد علوم نظری، بیشتر آنهایی را می پسندید که در رابطه با انسان باشند
شاید تنها خرده ای که بر افکار سقراط در این باره می توان گرفت این باشد که دوستانش را از پرداختن کامل به علوم هندسه و ستاره شناسی و ... باز می داشت و مثلا می گفت انسان باید از تفکر درباره وقایعی که در آسمان روی می دهد دوری بجوید
هرچند خود در علومی مانند هندسه و ستاره شناسی بی تبحر نبود ولی می گفت آموختن این علم ها همه اوقات آدمی را می گیرد و از بسیاری کارها و دانشهای سودمند باز می دارد
البته شرایط آن زمان را باید در نظر گرفت و بنظرم سقراط تا حد زیادی حرف درستی می زند
آیا خورشید آتش است؟
این ادعای آناکساگوراس بود و سقراط در این باره می گوید که آدمیان در آتش بآسانی می نگرند ولی در خورشید نمی توانند نگریست و اگر در آفتاب بنشینند رنگ پوستشان تیره می شود، ولی آتش این اثر را ندارد
:در مورد شجاعت
اگر کسی از امری خطرناک بدان جهت نترسد که آن را نمی شناسد آیا شجاع است؟
نه بخدا، وگرنه بسیاری از دیوانگان و ترسویان شجاع بودند
شجاع کسی است که در برابر امور خطرناک رفتار درست در پیش گیرد، و ترسو کسی است که در ان موارد رفتارش نادرست باشد
:روش سقراط در گفتگو ها
هنگام اختلاف نظر در مساله ای، بحث را به گفت و گو در اساس مساله می کشاند، و حقیقت بر کسانی هم که نخست مخالف عقیده سقراط بودند روشن می گردید
هنگامی که می خواست مطلبی را تشریح کند، بیان خود را با مطالبی آغاز می کرد که مورد قبول همه بود و به روش درست پیش می رفت و معتقد بود که انسان بدین ترتیب به نتایجی که از اندیشه خود می گیرد اعتماد تواند کرد
:در مورد محبت کردن
سقراط گفت: شهد محبت خویش را فقط به کسانی بچشان که مشتاق آنند زیرا خود نیک می دانی که لذیذترین خوراکها اگر بی اشتها خورده شود چندان دلپذیر نمی افتد، و حتی برای سیران بیزاری و دل اشوبه می آورد، حال آنکه در گرسنگی هر غذای ساده ای دلپذیر و گواراست
تئودوته گفت: چه باید بکنم تا کسی مشتاقم شود؟
پاسخ داد: لذت محبتت را به سیران عرضه مکن تا گرسنه شوند. آنگاه هم تا می توانی میلی به همنشینی با آنان نشان مده تا گمان کنند که از دستشان می گریزی و آتش اشتیاقشان تیزتر شود زیرا هرچیز به هنگام اشتیاق بسیار بیشتر می ارزد تا بوقت بی میلی
:فضیلت و رذیلت
:هزیود می گوید
بدی را به آسانی می توان به چنگ آورد
زیرا راه بدی کوتاه و آسان است
ولی خدایان جاویدان عرق ریختن راشرط رسیدن به فضیلت دانسته اند. راه فضیلت کوره راهی است دراز و ناهموار که آغازش سخت و انجامش،آنجا که به قله آن می رسی، آسان و هموار است
:اپیخارموس نیز می گوید
خدایان هر نیکی را به بهای کوشش می فروشند
:و در جای دیگر می گوید
ای ابله، راحتی مخواه تا به زحمت نیوفتی
داستان زیر را چند سال قبل بطور خلاصه خوانده بودم و خواندن کامل آن واقعا لذت بخش بود
:پرودیکوس حکیم هم در وصف هراکلس(هرکول) چنین نوشته است
چون هراکلس کودکی را پشت سر نهاد و به سن بلوغ رسید- و آن هنگامی است که جوانان استقلال رای می یابند و در سیمایشان نمودار می شود که در زندگی به فضیلت خواهند گروید یا به رذیلت- روزی به گوشه ای نشست و در اندیشه فرو رفت تا دریابد که کدام یک از آن دو را را باید برگزیند
از دور دو زن بلند بالا پیدا شدند که یکی زیبا بود و آثار نجابت از چهره اش نمایان بود و جامه ای سفید به تن داشت و زیوری جز سیمای پاکیزه و چشمان شرمگین و قیافه نجیب نداشت
دیگری فربه بود و چهره خود را با گلگونه و سفیداب رنگ کرده بود چنانکه سفیدتر و سرخ تر از آنچه خود بود می نمود و می کوشید تا قامت خود را بالاتر از آنچه هست بنماید. چشمانی دریده داشت و جامه ای نازک پوشیده بود تا زیبایی بدن را هرچه بیشتر نمایان سازد. هر دم به خود و سایه خود می نگریست و می کوشید تا نگاه دیگران را به خود جلب کند
چون به هراکلس نزدیک شند، زن نخستین تغییری در رفتار خود نداد؛ ولی زن دوم
:پیشتر افتاد و خود را زودتر به هراکلس رساند و گفت
هراکلس، می بینم در تردیدی که کدام یک از دو راه را در پیش گیری. اگر مرا به دوستی برگزینی و به دنبال من بیایی ترا به راهی هموار و اسان رهنمون می شوم و هیچ لذتی را از تو دریغ نیم ورزم و نمی گذارم کوچکترین رنجی به تو برسد. کاری می کنم که همواره از اندیشه جنگ و کار و کوشش فارغ باشی و خوراک های لذیذ بخوری و نوشیدنی های گوارا بنوشی و با هر پسری که می پسندی نشست و برخاست کنی و در بستر نرم بخوابی و به هر آرزویی که در سر داری بآسانی برسی
اگر این اندیشه در دلت راه بیابد که شاید روزی تنگدست شوی و به آنچه دلت میخواهد دست نیابی، نگران نباش؛ چون من نمی گذارم دوستانم تن و نفس خود را بزحمت بیفکنند و برای برآوردن هوس های خود تن به کار و کوشش بهند بلکه کاری میکنم که تو از حاصل کاردیگران بهره برگیری و هیچ فرصتی را برای گرد آوردن مال از دست ندهی، زیرا من به دوستانم این توانایی را می بخشم که از همه جا فایده برند
سقراط گفت : هروقت نیازمند من شدی، راه آن را خود کشف خواهی کرد
سقراط یا در اصل سوکراتس انسانی بزرگ و والا بوده که انسانیت می تواند به وجودش فخر بفروشد
مردی که در این جهان مرگ را جرعه جرعه نوشید تا نه مثه گالیله مجبور شود سخنانی که به آن ایمان داشت را نفی کند
و نه بمانند خیلی از انسان ها دو دستی به سال های پایان عمرش بچسبد که چندان ارزشی برای زیستن ندارد
:دوستی در یکی از استاتوس ها کامنت جالبی گذاشته بودند
There is a funny claim that Xenophon's Socrates is closer to the real socrates than that of Plato's because Xenophon was not smart and imaginative enough to make up A Socrates
مطالبی از کتاب می آورم تا دوستانی که علاقمند هستند بیشتر با سقراط کسنوفون آشنا شوند
در ابتدا بگویم که سقراط به خدایان باور داشت و حتی ادعا می کرد که ذات الهی با علائم و اشاراتی به او فرمان می دهد که چه باید بکند و چه نباید بکند
اما در کارهایی که در حیطه خرد بود همواره می کوشید از منطق پیروی کند و آنرا به بخت و اقبال وانمی گذاشت
وی مردی بسیار پرهیزکار بود و به هرموگنس پسر هیپونیکوس گفته بود در همه عمر کاری نکرده ام جز اینکه عدل را از ظلم تشخیص بدهم و موافق عدل عمل کنم و از ظلم دوری بجویم
وی دوستانش را به خویشتن داری دعوت و از لگام گسیختگی سخت نهی می کرد
البته وی لذت بردن از زندگی را نفی نمی کرد و حتی به دیگران می آموخت که
:چگونه میتوان بیشتر لذت برد
آیا معتقدید که آزادی گرانبهاترین ثروت هاست؟
به عقیده شما کسی که اسیر هوس های تن است و بدین جهت از کار نیک ناتوان، آیا آزاد است؟
آیا مردمانی که بر نفس خود تسلط ندارند، تنها از کار نیک ناتوانند، یا علاوه بر این ناچارند که بدترین کارها را انجام دهند؟
سخت ترین اسارت ها تسلط نداشتن بر نفس خویش است
لگام گسیختگی آدمی را از دانایی ،که بزرگترین موهبت هاست، باز می دارد
و همچنین نمی گذارد که در برابر گرسنگی و تشنگی و آرزوی برآوردن شهوات نفسانی
پایداری کنیم، حال آنکه می دانیم خوردن و نوشیدن و خوابیدن و برآوردن شهوت هنگامی براستی لذت بخش است که چندی در برابر آنها پایداری شود. بنابراین لگام گسیختگی ما را از آن لذایذ باز می دارد، ولی تسلط بر نفس سبب می شود که بر شهوات عنان بزنیم تا تسکین آنها مایه لذت و شادمانی گردد
سقراط خود غذا چندان بکار می برد که خوردن برایش مایه لذت باشد، و تا گرسنه نمی شد دست به طعام نمی برد.از همه آشامیدنی ها لذت می برد، زیرا تا تشنه نمی شد چیزی نمی نوشید
علوم در نظر سقراط
سقراط علوم کاربردی مانند یاد گرفتن فنون نظامی برای دفاع از وطن و پیشه ای را یاد گرفتن برای امرار معاش را واجب می دانست و درمورد علوم نظری، بیشتر آنهایی را می پسندید که در رابطه با انسان باشند
شاید تنها خرده ای که بر افکار سقراط در این باره می توان گرفت این باشد که دوستانش را از پرداختن کامل به علوم هندسه و ستاره شناسی و ... باز می داشت و مثلا می گفت انسان باید از تفکر درباره وقایعی که در آسمان روی می دهد دوری بجوید
هرچند خود در علومی مانند هندسه و ستاره شناسی بی تبحر نبود ولی می گفت آموختن این علم ها همه اوقات آدمی را می گیرد و از بسیاری کارها و دانشهای سودمند باز می دارد
البته شرایط آن زمان را باید در نظر گرفت و بنظرم سقراط تا حد زیادی حرف درستی می زند
آیا خورشید آتش است؟
این ادعای آناکساگوراس بود و سقراط در این باره می گوید که آدمیان در آتش بآسانی می نگرند ولی در خورشید نمی توانند نگریست و اگر در آفتاب بنشینند رنگ پوستشان تیره می شود، ولی آتش این اثر را ندارد
:در مورد شجاعت
اگر کسی از امری خطرناک بدان جهت نترسد که آن را نمی شناسد آیا شجاع است؟
نه بخدا، وگرنه بسیاری از دیوانگان و ترسویان شجاع بودند
شجاع کسی است که در برابر امور خطرناک رفتار درست در پیش گیرد، و ترسو کسی است که در ان موارد رفتارش نادرست باشد
:روش سقراط در گفتگو ها
هنگام اختلاف نظر در مساله ای، بحث را به گفت و گو در اساس مساله می کشاند، و حقیقت بر کسانی هم که نخست مخالف عقیده سقراط بودند روشن می گردید
هنگامی که می خواست مطلبی را تشریح کند، بیان خود را با مطالبی آغاز می کرد که مورد قبول همه بود و به روش درست پیش می رفت و معتقد بود که انسان بدین ترتیب به نتایجی که از اندیشه خود می گیرد اعتماد تواند کرد
:در مورد محبت کردن
سقراط گفت: شهد محبت خویش را فقط به کسانی بچشان که مشتاق آنند زیرا خود نیک می دانی که لذیذترین خوراکها اگر بی اشتها خورده شود چندان دلپذیر نمی افتد، و حتی برای سیران بیزاری و دل اشوبه می آورد، حال آنکه در گرسنگی هر غذای ساده ای دلپذیر و گواراست
تئودوته گفت: چه باید بکنم تا کسی مشتاقم شود؟
پاسخ داد: لذت محبتت را به سیران عرضه مکن تا گرسنه شوند. آنگاه هم تا می توانی میلی به همنشینی با آنان نشان مده تا گمان کنند که از دستشان می گریزی و آتش اشتیاقشان تیزتر شود زیرا هرچیز به هنگام اشتیاق بسیار بیشتر می ارزد تا بوقت بی میلی
:فضیلت و رذیلت
:هزیود می گوید
بدی را به آسانی می توان به چنگ آورد
زیرا راه بدی کوتاه و آسان است
ولی خدایان جاویدان عرق ریختن راشرط رسیدن به فضیلت دانسته اند. راه فضیلت کوره راهی است دراز و ناهموار که آغازش سخت و انجامش،آنجا که به قله آن می رسی، آسان و هموار است
:اپیخارموس نیز می گوید
خدایان هر نیکی را به بهای کوشش می فروشند
:و در جای دیگر می گوید
ای ابله، راحتی مخواه تا به زحمت نیوفتی
داستان زیر را چند سال قبل بطور خلاصه خوانده بودم و خواندن کامل آن واقعا لذت بخش بود
:پرودیکوس حکیم هم در وصف هراکلس(هرکول) چنین نوشته است
چون هراکلس کودکی را پشت سر نهاد و به سن بلوغ رسید- و آن هنگامی است که جوانان استقلال رای می یابند و در سیمایشان نمودار می شود که در زندگی به فضیلت خواهند گروید یا به رذیلت- روزی به گوشه ای نشست و در اندیشه فرو رفت تا دریابد که کدام یک از آن دو را را باید برگزیند
از دور دو زن بلند بالا پیدا شدند که یکی زیبا بود و آثار نجابت از چهره اش نمایان بود و جامه ای سفید به تن داشت و زیوری جز سیمای پاکیزه و چشمان شرمگین و قیافه نجیب نداشت
دیگری فربه بود و چهره خود را با گلگونه و سفیداب رنگ کرده بود چنانکه سفیدتر و سرخ تر از آنچه خود بود می نمود و می کوشید تا قامت خود را بالاتر از آنچه هست بنماید. چشمانی دریده داشت و جامه ای نازک پوشیده بود تا زیبایی بدن را هرچه بیشتر نمایان سازد. هر دم به خود و سایه خود می نگریست و می کوشید تا نگاه دیگران را به خود جلب کند
چون به هراکلس نزدیک شند، زن نخستین تغییری در رفتار خود نداد؛ ولی زن دوم
:پیشتر افتاد و خود را زودتر به هراکلس رساند و گفت
هراکلس، می بینم در تردیدی که کدام یک از دو راه را در پیش گیری. اگر مرا به دوستی برگزینی و به دنبال من بیایی ترا به راهی هموار و اسان رهنمون می شوم و هیچ لذتی را از تو دریغ نیم ورزم و نمی گذارم کوچکترین رنجی به تو برسد. کاری می کنم که همواره از اندیشه جنگ و کار و کوشش فارغ باشی و خوراک های لذیذ بخوری و نوشیدنی های گوارا بنوشی و با هر پسری که می پسندی نشست و برخاست کنی و در بستر نرم بخوابی و به هر آرزویی که در سر داری بآسانی برسی
اگر این اندیشه در دلت راه بیابد که شاید روزی تنگدست شوی و به آنچه دلت میخواهد دست نیابی، نگران نباش؛ چون من نمی گذارم دوستانم تن و نفس خود را بزحمت بیفکنند و برای برآوردن هوس های خود تن به کار و کوشش بهند بلکه کاری میکنم که تو از حاصل کاردیگران بهره برگیری و هیچ فرصتی را برای گرد آوردن مال از دست ندهی، زیرا من به دوستانم این توانایی را می بخشم که از همه جا فایده برند
September 24, 2008
Socrates has always been a hero of mine, when the daughters were very young I told them the story of his death and told them that he died asking questions and his death therefore meant their birthright was to be able to ask questions. Both of them still are just as likely to begin a sentence with, “Dad, I’ve got a question” and both know they will, if they begin a sentence in that way, be guaranteed my undivided attention. Now, after reading this, I think I need to say that Plato’s Socrates is my hero.
To be honest, I think I enjoyed the introductions to these four works more than the works themselves. I kept wondering if Plato’s works had not survived what would we have made of Socrates. It would seem very unlikely that we would still consider him the central figure at the birth of Western Idealist philosophy if all that was left of him were the descriptions in Xenophon’s rather patchy works.
The thing that would have to be removed from his resume – or CV if you prefer – would be his Socratic Method, or the dialectical process of truth through questioning. I was very surprised by how little this was used by Xenophon in any of these works. In fact, Socrates is much too ‘preachy’ in Xenophon. This was something that was mentioned in one of the introductions, but I really would have noticed this myself.
Think about the things you really know about Socrates. One must be that he asks lots of questions – now, I know, even in Plato those questions are pointed, directed and intended to lead pretty much in one direction – but at least that is how he works. The point of the questioning is that Socrates believes that truth is about ‘revealing’ – in the sense of showing what is already there to be found to show. To Plato’s Socrates one must essentially find information out for one’s self. His questions are designed to lead those being questioned towards the truth – towards a kind of uncovering.
Xenophon’s Socrates, particularly in the Memoirs (but elsewhere too), talks too much in homilies for my taste. He dispenses wisdom – and often that wisdom is a bit too much like Dr Phil.
The other thing you know about Socrates is that he was the guy who said, “All I know is that I know nothing.” Which, of course, is the other explanation for all the questions. This really does not come across in any of the works here. Socrates is presented as a god among men – the sort of man people ought to hang around on the assumption that goodness is in some way contagious.
If Plato’s works are sublime, Xenophon’s are much more every day. This is even clear in the difference in the English translations given to the titles of the works written by the two authors. Plato writes the Socratic Dialogues, Xenophon the Conversations – Plato writes The Symposium, Xenophon The Dinner Party - Plato The Apology and Xenophon Socrates’ Defence. Even though the actual titles given by Plato and Xenophon themselves are the same word in Ancient Greek – the English translations of these titles says much about the substance of the works themselves. I mean, Plato’s works deserve to have higher sounding titles than Xenophons.
Stylistically too, Xenophon is no match – but this is really not saying much. Plato is one of the greatest writers of all time. It would be like comparing Pride and Prejudice to some hideous book written by some no hope, second-rater that tells the story of what happened next in the lives of Elizabeth and Fitzwilliam after their marriage. Yes, exactly – it is hard not to make that face when you think about it, isn’t it?
What did surprise me, though, was that many of Xenophon’s works seemed very much ‘patched together’. This was particularly true of the last of the works here – The Estate Manager. This was two works more or less stuck together and the seams do show – almost as much as if the shirt was worn inside out.
Plato’s treatment of women is infinitely better than Xenophon’s. Hypatia, one of the greatest personages of history and one of my greatest heroes (and as good a reason to hate that particular class of Christians Palin represents as any other) only got to have an education because her father was a Neo-Platonist. Hard to imagine her getting that opportunity if her father had been a Neo-Xenophonian. All the same - Xenophon's treatment of women was much better than, say, Hegel's or so many other philosophers. At least the woman in The Estate Manager was able to learn something.
I have often wondered how much the Socrates in history was like the Socrates in the Dialogues – how much was he a creation of Plato. I guess we will never really know. I am glad that I read these works, because, if nothing else, they make Plato’s Socrates seem all the more remarkable.
I was also disappointed that Xenophon had Socrates repeatedly say that one should do good to one’s friends, but bad to one’s enemies. This is the opposite of what Plato tells us was a core idea of Socrates’ philosophy – once again I’m going to have to go with Plato.
Of all the works here, The Dinner Party was probably the best. It was quite delightful in places – particularly when Socrates was explaining why he was better looking than his host. That is the other thing it is important to know about my mate Socrates – he was quite ugly. He had ‘a face like a well skelped arse’ as they say in Belfast.
It is amusing to think that there are essentially three writers extant who knew and wrote about Socrates and each has such a remarkably different opinion of him – everything from fool through to genius. I am going to have to read The Clouds now by Aristophanes – it can’t be helped and ought not to be delayed.
To be honest, I think I enjoyed the introductions to these four works more than the works themselves. I kept wondering if Plato’s works had not survived what would we have made of Socrates. It would seem very unlikely that we would still consider him the central figure at the birth of Western Idealist philosophy if all that was left of him were the descriptions in Xenophon’s rather patchy works.
The thing that would have to be removed from his resume – or CV if you prefer – would be his Socratic Method, or the dialectical process of truth through questioning. I was very surprised by how little this was used by Xenophon in any of these works. In fact, Socrates is much too ‘preachy’ in Xenophon. This was something that was mentioned in one of the introductions, but I really would have noticed this myself.
Think about the things you really know about Socrates. One must be that he asks lots of questions – now, I know, even in Plato those questions are pointed, directed and intended to lead pretty much in one direction – but at least that is how he works. The point of the questioning is that Socrates believes that truth is about ‘revealing’ – in the sense of showing what is already there to be found to show. To Plato’s Socrates one must essentially find information out for one’s self. His questions are designed to lead those being questioned towards the truth – towards a kind of uncovering.
Xenophon’s Socrates, particularly in the Memoirs (but elsewhere too), talks too much in homilies for my taste. He dispenses wisdom – and often that wisdom is a bit too much like Dr Phil.
The other thing you know about Socrates is that he was the guy who said, “All I know is that I know nothing.” Which, of course, is the other explanation for all the questions. This really does not come across in any of the works here. Socrates is presented as a god among men – the sort of man people ought to hang around on the assumption that goodness is in some way contagious.
If Plato’s works are sublime, Xenophon’s are much more every day. This is even clear in the difference in the English translations given to the titles of the works written by the two authors. Plato writes the Socratic Dialogues, Xenophon the Conversations – Plato writes The Symposium, Xenophon The Dinner Party - Plato The Apology and Xenophon Socrates’ Defence. Even though the actual titles given by Plato and Xenophon themselves are the same word in Ancient Greek – the English translations of these titles says much about the substance of the works themselves. I mean, Plato’s works deserve to have higher sounding titles than Xenophons.
Stylistically too, Xenophon is no match – but this is really not saying much. Plato is one of the greatest writers of all time. It would be like comparing Pride and Prejudice to some hideous book written by some no hope, second-rater that tells the story of what happened next in the lives of Elizabeth and Fitzwilliam after their marriage. Yes, exactly – it is hard not to make that face when you think about it, isn’t it?
What did surprise me, though, was that many of Xenophon’s works seemed very much ‘patched together’. This was particularly true of the last of the works here – The Estate Manager. This was two works more or less stuck together and the seams do show – almost as much as if the shirt was worn inside out.
Plato’s treatment of women is infinitely better than Xenophon’s. Hypatia, one of the greatest personages of history and one of my greatest heroes (and as good a reason to hate that particular class of Christians Palin represents as any other) only got to have an education because her father was a Neo-Platonist. Hard to imagine her getting that opportunity if her father had been a Neo-Xenophonian. All the same - Xenophon's treatment of women was much better than, say, Hegel's or so many other philosophers. At least the woman in The Estate Manager was able to learn something.
I have often wondered how much the Socrates in history was like the Socrates in the Dialogues – how much was he a creation of Plato. I guess we will never really know. I am glad that I read these works, because, if nothing else, they make Plato’s Socrates seem all the more remarkable.
I was also disappointed that Xenophon had Socrates repeatedly say that one should do good to one’s friends, but bad to one’s enemies. This is the opposite of what Plato tells us was a core idea of Socrates’ philosophy – once again I’m going to have to go with Plato.
Of all the works here, The Dinner Party was probably the best. It was quite delightful in places – particularly when Socrates was explaining why he was better looking than his host. That is the other thing it is important to know about my mate Socrates – he was quite ugly. He had ‘a face like a well skelped arse’ as they say in Belfast.
It is amusing to think that there are essentially three writers extant who knew and wrote about Socrates and each has such a remarkably different opinion of him – everything from fool through to genius. I am going to have to read The Clouds now by Aristophanes – it can’t be helped and ought not to be delayed.
July 19, 2018
'I have no doubt that the future, just as the past has done, will attest that I never wronged or harmed anyone, but benefited those I conversed with by freely teaching them any good thing I could.’ (Apology)
__________
'So, since my becoming a good man is not entirely out of the question, do please tell me all about what you do, and then, in so far as I can understand what you say, I'll be able to try to follow suit, which is what I'll do, starting from tomorrow morning. For tomorrow is a good day for embarking on a life of virtue.' (Oeconomicus)
__________
This volume collects Xenophon's four Socratic Dialogues: Apology, Memorabilia, Symposium, and Oeconomicus.
Apology is a very short work detailing Socrates' thoughts about his upcoming trial.
Memorabilia is Xenophon's major Socratic work. Comprising four books, it could be simply described as short conversations with Socrates on a variety of topics, both public and private, and nicely displays Socrates' trademark reasoning.
Symposium shows both Socrates' and his follower's humorous side whilst they discuss love, and would nicely complement Plato's Dialogue of the same title.
Oeconomicus contains a discussion of one's Estate, and is a little too long and non-philosophical in my opinion. It can be skipped without much loss, and be left to completionists.
This penguin edition is highly recommended. It contains a good general introduction, as well as excellent introductions to the individual works containing some very useful reference points with Plato's dialogues, as well as very good notes.
With regards to comparisons with Plato, I'll leave this here from Mr. Waterfield's Introduction:
In short, to prefer Plato's portrait to Xenophon's is just to compare Xenophon unfavourably with Plato as both a writer and a thinker. But this is only to say that not everyone is a genius.
__________
' . . . I open and read from beginning to end the books in which the wise men of past times have written down and bequeathed to us their treasures; and when [I] see anything good, [I] take it for [myself]; and [I] regard our mutual friendship as great gain.’ (Memorabilia, 1.6)
If they rediscovered their ancestors' way of life and followed it as well as they did . . . (Memorabilia 2.5)
_____
'. . . while others acquire their shop-bought luxuries at a high price, I arrange far greater, mental luxuries at no cost at all . . .’ (Apology)
'For instance, when I want to have a good time, I don't buy luxuries in the market — it costs too much; I supply myself from my own mind.’ (Symposium 4)
'Most people . . . never turn to examine themselves. Don't shirk this responsibility, but make a greater effort to take yourself seriously.’ (Memorabilia 2.7)
'It's your turn, Niceratus: tell us what accomplishment you're proud of.'
Niceratus said, 'My father, because he was concerned to make me a good man, made me learn the whole works of Homer; and I could now repeat by heart the entire Iliad and Odyssey.’ (Symposium 3)
'You know, I presume, that within the poems of that greatest of sages, Homer, is information about practically every aspect of human affairs.’ (Symposium 4)
'. . . what ought we to smell of?'
'True goodness, of course,' said Socrates.
'And where can one get this lotion?'
'Not at a perfumery, certainly.’ (Symposium 2)
'Don't you realize that this creature which they call the bloom of youth is even more dangerous than spiders? . . . if one looks at it, even from quite a distance, it can inject a kind of poison that drives one crazy. No; I advise you, Xenophon, when you see an attractive person, to take to your heels as fast as you can; and I advise you, Critobulus, to go away for a year. That may give you just enough time to recover.' (Memorabilia 1.3)
_____
One of those present was Apollodorus, who was a great devotee of Socrates . . . He said, ‘but the most difficult thing for me to bear, Socrates, is that I see you being unjustly put to death.’ Socrates (as the story goes) stroked Apollodorus’ head and replied with a smile: ‘You’re a good friend, Apollodorus, but would you rather see me put to death justly or unjustly?’ (Defence)
When I consider how wise the man was, and how high-minded, I am bound to remember him; and when I remember him, I am bound to admire him. If anyone in his search for virtue has encountered a more helpful person than Socrates, then he deserves, in my opinion, to be called the most fortunate of all men. (Defence)
____________________
The Choice of Heracles (Memorabilia 2.1)
‘The same view of moral goodness is also set out by the sophist Prodicus in the story of Heracles, which is one of his most popular displays; it runs like this, as far as I remember. When Heracles was setting out from childhood toward manhood, at the age when the young become independent and show whether they are going to approach life by the path of goodness or by the path of wickedness, he went out to a quiet spot and sat down considering which way he should take. While he was sitting there, he thought he saw two women approach him. Both were tall, but one of them was handsome in appearance with a natural air of distinction, clean-limbed and modest in expression, and soberly dressed in a white robe, while the other was well fed to the point of fleshiness and softness, made up to have a complexion too red and white to be real, and with a carriage more upright than was natural, with a brazen expression, and robed in a way that revealed as much as possible of her charms. She kept on examining herself, and watching to see if anyone was looking at her, and glancing at her own shadow. When they got nearer Heracles, the first of the two continued to advance in the same way, but the other, wishing to forestall her, ran up to him and said:
“Heracles, I see that you cannot make up your mind which way of life to adopt. If you take me as your friend, I will lead you by the easiest and pleasantest road; you shall not miss the taste of any pleasure, and you shall live out your life without any experience of hardship. In the first place, you will not be concerned with wars or responsibilities; you shall constantly consider what food or drink you can find to suit your taste, and what sight or sound or scent or touch might please you, and which lover’s society will gratify you most, and how you can sleep most comfortably, and how you can achieve all these objects with the least trouble. And if there is ever any suspicion of a shortage of any of these benefits, you need not fear that I shall involve you in any physical or mental effort or distress in procuring them; you shall enjoy the fruits of other people’s labours, and you shall refrain from nothing from which you can derive any advantage, because I authorise my followers to benefit themselves from all quarters.”
‘When Heracles heard this, he asked, “What is your name, lady?” She replied, “My friends call me Happiness, but people who don’t like me nickname me Vice.”
‘Meanwhile, the other woman came forward and said, “I too have come to meet you, Heracles, because I know your parents and I have carefully observed your natural qualities in the course of your education, and this knowledge makes me hope that, if you will only take the path that leads to me, you may become a very effective performer of fine and noble deeds, and I may win much greater honour still, and brighter glory for the blessings I bestow. I will not delude you with promises of future pleasure; I shall give you a true account of the facts, exactly as the gods have ordained them. Nothing that is really good and admirable is granted bu the gods to men without some effort and application. If you want the gods to be gracious to you, you must worship the gods; if you wish to be loved by your friends, you must be kind to your friends; if you desire to be honoured by a State, you must help that State; if you expect to be admired for your fine qualities by the whole of Greece, you must try to benefit Greece; if you want your land to produce abundant crops, you must look after your land; if you expect to make money from your livestock, you must take care of your livestock; if you have an impulse to extend your influence by war, and want to be able to free your friends and subdue your enemies, you must both learn the actual arts of war from those who understand them, and practise the proper way of applying them; and if you want to be physically efficient, you must train your body to be subject to your reason, and develop it with hard work and sweat.”
‘Here Vice, as Prodicus tells, broke in. “Do you realise, Heracles,” she said, “what a long and difficult road to enjoyment this woman is describing to you? I will put you on a short and easy road to happiness.”
“Impudent creature!” said Virtue. “What good have you to offer, or what do you know of pleasure, you who refuse to do anything with a view to either? You don’t even wait for the desire for what is pleasant: you stuff yourself with everything before you want it, eating before you are hungry and drinking before you are thirsty. To make eating enjoyable you invent refinements of cookery, and to make drinking enjoyable, you provide yourself with expensive wines and rush about searching for ice in summer. To make going to sleep pleasant, you provide yourself not only with soft blankets, but also with bases for your beds, for it is not work but boredom that makes you want to go to bed. You force the gratification of your sexual impulses before they ask for it, employing all kinds of devices and trading men as women. That is the sort of training that you give your friends — exciting their passions by night, and putting them to sleep for the best part of the day. Although you are immortal, you have been turned out by the gods, and you are despised by decent men. You are denied the hearing of the sweetest of all sounds — praise of yourself — and you are denied the seeing of the sweetest of all sights, for you have never contemplated any act of yours that was admirable. Who would trust your word? Who would assist you if you needed someone? What sane person would have the face to join your devotees? When they are young, they are feeble in body, and when they get older, they are foolish in mind; they are maintained in their youth in effortless comfort, but pass their old age in laborious squalor, disgraced by their past actions and burdened by their present ones, because in their youth they have run through all that was pleasant, and laid up for their old age what is hard to bear.
‘“I associate both with gods and with good men, and no fine action, human or divine, is done independently of me. I am held in the highest honour both among gods and men who are akin to me. I am a welcome fellow worker to the craftsman, a faithful guardian to the householder, a kindly protector to the servant, an efficient helper in the tasks of peace, a staunch ally in the operations of war, and the best partner in friendship. My friends can enjoy food and drink with pleasure and without effort, because they abstain until they feel a desire for them. Their sleep is sweeter than the sleep of the easy-living, and they neither are vexed when they have to give it up, nor make it an excuse for neglecting their duty. The young enjoy the praise of their elders, and the older people are happy in the respect of the young. They recall their past achievements with pleasure, and rejoice in their present successes, because through me they are dear to the gods, loved by their friends, and honoured by their country. And when their appointed end comes, they do not lie forgotten in obscurity, but flourish celebrated in memory for all time.
‘That is roughly how Prodicus describes the education of Heracles by Virtue, except that he actually dressed up the sentiments in language still more splendid than I have used now. At any rate, Aristippus, you had better think this over and try to take some account of the factors that will affect the life that lies in front of you.’
August 26, 2021
Ksenofontov Sokrat je, za razliku od Platonovog, konkretniji, jasniji, pragmatičniji, okrenutiji ovozemaljskim pitanjima i, usudiću se čak reći – životniji. Istina, nezgodno je ovakvo poređenje i nipošto ne treba da se čita u vrednosnom ključu, već u kontekstu mogućnosti razlike – jer Sokrat je, izabravši da ni retka u svoje ime ne napiše, odabrao da bude, evo već dve i po hiljade godina, odjek drugih, a time i glas dinamike zajednice. To nije učinio iz skromnosti, nego upravo iz temeljnog uverenja o potrebi saglasja teorije i prakse. Sokrat je bio, pre i posle svega, delatnik, čije su reči doslovno dosledno menjale svet. Zapisivanje bi predstavljalo (privremeno) udaljavanje od neposredne društvenosti, a čak bi otvorilo prostor razlici između reči i dela. Sokrat je ostao nem da bi bio govorljiviji od svega onoga što je mogao da napiše, jer bez zajednice u vrlini, nema ni njega. A vrlina je tu prikladnost koja se ispunjava samosavlađivanjem, do kojeg se dolazi čuvenim gnōthi seauton (spoznaj sebe!). Ali ja je (kao što Rembo kaže) neko drugi i tek kroz odgovor sredine može da živi ne samo naše društveno biće, nego i naša misao (o sebi i svetu). Sokrat je pre svega, kao majeutičar, biće dijaloga – a dijalog predstavlja susret dva logosa, koji iz međusobnog kontakta daju nešto što je nesvodljivo na početne razgovorne pozicije. Dijalog je i ukrštaj, preplet, sukob, samoostvarenje misli i traženje mere. A mera je najveća vrlina – mera kao samoprevazilaženje i samosavlađivanje (21), jer čime se to čovek razlikuje od najnerazumnije životinje ako svakog momenta ne ide za onim što je najbolje već za onim što je najprijatnije (118)? Mera je taj prekopotrebni životni kôd – susret – i sve, shodno tome, da bi bilo vredno mora da bude i PODESNO (103). A šta to znači? Sokrat ne razdvaja kategorije lepog od dobrog – jer, kako tvrdi – i zlatni štit je ružan ako je rđavo (nefunkcionalno) urađen (79). Svaki pojedinac, stoga, ima i dužnost prema sopstvenoj meri, odnosno, prema svojim potencijalima koji tek kroz obrazovanje može da bude dostignuto. Ksenofantov Sokrat tako mnogo pažnje posvećuje nezi tela, koje predstavlja naš nužan uslov slobode, a slobodan je samo onaj koji nije neuzdržljiv (116). Osim pretnji lenjosti i prejedanja, Sokrat izdvaja i opasnosti „od ljubavnog uživanja što ga pružaju lepi momci” jer nije lako biti razborit ko se takvih dotiče (19). U tom svetlu, sasvim je fascinantan taj homoerotski sloj dela, neuporediv sa sadašnjim vremenom. Tu je, međutim, još sijaset interesantnih, krajnje životnih pitanja i, moguće, poznatih situacija, pre svega vezane za porodične odnose.
Velika je ovo priča, ali ja samo da spomenem dve trivije, što potiču odavde:
1) SIKOFANTI su bili oni pakosni pojedinci koji su optuživali nekoga ko je iz Atine da je, uprkos zabrani, iznosio smokve na prodaju. (134) Gadni ljudi. Ne budite sikofanti.
2) Cena za jednog roba u Grčkoj iznosila je 2 mine (= 200 drahmi). Sokrat razgovara o tome imaju li prijatelji cenu.
I treća – bonus trivija o triviji – trivija znači „troputje”, što može predstavljati u izvesnom smislu i raskrsnicu. Nipošto trivijalno, zar ne?
Velika je ovo priča, ali ja samo da spomenem dve trivije, što potiču odavde:
1) SIKOFANTI su bili oni pakosni pojedinci koji su optuživali nekoga ko je iz Atine da je, uprkos zabrani, iznosio smokve na prodaju. (134) Gadni ljudi. Ne budite sikofanti.
2) Cena za jednog roba u Grčkoj iznosila je 2 mine (= 200 drahmi). Sokrat razgovara o tome imaju li prijatelji cenu.
I treća – bonus trivija o triviji – trivija znači „troputje”, što može predstavljati u izvesnom smislu i raskrsnicu. Nipošto trivijalno, zar ne?
April 1, 2017
I read this book fairly quickly but I think I absorbed it well enough to say that it was an excellent defense and portrayal of Socrates.
I really feel no need to make Xenophon's portrayal of Socrates compete with Plato's. The impressions I get of him in both accounts is not all that incompatible. Xenophon mentions early on that Socrates was not given to discourses on metaphysics, and I must conclude that this is most likely correct. The times when Plato portrays Socrates this way must be seen as Plato using Socrates as his own mouthpiece for subjects and questions that interested him personally. Plato was most likely influenced by philosophers like Pythagoras and Anaxagoras for this element of his thought. Xenophon mentions more than once that Socrates thought that those kinds of speculations were vain and frivolous; even going so far as to make Anaxagoras a byword for that kind of frivolity. Xenophon's portrayal of Socrates as being more concerned with ethics is almost certainly more correct historically.
Another interesting divergence is that Xenophon's Socrates is unabashedly against the kind of eros that would have any kind of pederastic overtones; Plato made this somewhat ambiguous. Other than in Plato's erotic motifs and in his metaphysics, the two versions of Socrates are not that disparate. You still have a man who was dedicated to investigating truth and given to meticulous interrogations of interlocutors. The elenchus of the Socratic method is still unquestionably there, but maybe not quite as overwrought as in the Platonic dialogues. Book 4 Chapter 2 is a worthy comparison to the Socrates of the early Platonic dialogues. Here you have Socrates seeking to convince Euthydemus that he really knows nothing -and of course- Socrates is successful. Many of the cast of characters, such as Euthydemus, make appearances in both accounts of Socrates. Xenophon even mentions Plato once. It seems though that Xenophon's portrayal is purposely polemical in regards to Plato. Even though I am very much a Plato enthusiast, I am not that bothered by Xenophon's tendency for polemics.
Xenophon's portrayal of Socrates gives us a much more rounded picture of the kind of man Socrates was. Somewhere between his and Plato's accounts we really do get a feel for who the man was. That makes this work an important historical document and thus very essential reading.
I really feel no need to make Xenophon's portrayal of Socrates compete with Plato's. The impressions I get of him in both accounts is not all that incompatible. Xenophon mentions early on that Socrates was not given to discourses on metaphysics, and I must conclude that this is most likely correct. The times when Plato portrays Socrates this way must be seen as Plato using Socrates as his own mouthpiece for subjects and questions that interested him personally. Plato was most likely influenced by philosophers like Pythagoras and Anaxagoras for this element of his thought. Xenophon mentions more than once that Socrates thought that those kinds of speculations were vain and frivolous; even going so far as to make Anaxagoras a byword for that kind of frivolity. Xenophon's portrayal of Socrates as being more concerned with ethics is almost certainly more correct historically.
Another interesting divergence is that Xenophon's Socrates is unabashedly against the kind of eros that would have any kind of pederastic overtones; Plato made this somewhat ambiguous. Other than in Plato's erotic motifs and in his metaphysics, the two versions of Socrates are not that disparate. You still have a man who was dedicated to investigating truth and given to meticulous interrogations of interlocutors. The elenchus of the Socratic method is still unquestionably there, but maybe not quite as overwrought as in the Platonic dialogues. Book 4 Chapter 2 is a worthy comparison to the Socrates of the early Platonic dialogues. Here you have Socrates seeking to convince Euthydemus that he really knows nothing -and of course- Socrates is successful. Many of the cast of characters, such as Euthydemus, make appearances in both accounts of Socrates. Xenophon even mentions Plato once. It seems though that Xenophon's portrayal is purposely polemical in regards to Plato. Even though I am very much a Plato enthusiast, I am not that bothered by Xenophon's tendency for polemics.
Xenophon's portrayal of Socrates gives us a much more rounded picture of the kind of man Socrates was. Somewhere between his and Plato's accounts we really do get a feel for who the man was. That makes this work an important historical document and thus very essential reading.
November 24, 2017
This is a quick read. The Man asks a lot of questions. A teacher perhaps but not in the casual definition of the word. He, like others, paid the ultimate price, for his personal quest to be virtuous. This is one component of human nature, false and creative verdicts, repeated without interruption, before him and after him. And like all who exist within the realm of a mind, whether it was shared, written, adjudicated or kept privately, these thoughts are buried with their body when all is finished. And the earth continues to spin.
A final note; is whether he, like a Shakespeare, ever even existed?
A final note; is whether he, like a Shakespeare, ever even existed?
November 3, 2022
One of the most interesting and lively texts about Socrates, a must read for those interested in ancient practical philosophy. While Plato's Socrates has a philosophical agenda that is often hard to distinguish from Plato's own, Xenophon's version of the sage of Athens is more credible and very refreshing. We see Socrates giving advice to wannabe politicians as well as courtesans, and even to his own son, Lamprocles! Moreover, we hear a very credible explanation from Xenophon for why Socrates did not defend himself effectively at his famous trial.
Read
June 3, 2025خوندن کتاب واقعا تجربهی جالبی بود. سقراط افلاطون آدمی بسیار زیرک و باهوشه که همیشه درست میگه و تنها چیزی که مردم در جوابش میگن "درسته" "منطقیه" و "حق با توئه" (که این فرمت دیالوگ سقراطی حتی تبدیل به میم شده). سقراط زنوفون اما واقعی تره، هر دلیلی که میاره دوست هاش دلیلی میارن که حرفش رو نقض میکنه، و خطای زیادی داره. میشه واضح دید که چقدر از حرف هاش مغلطه و پیچوندن سوال اصلیه و در عین حال باز هم چقدر متفاوت به مسائل نگاه میکنه. با این حال سقراط زنون در جامعه یونان یک فرد باهوش تر در میان افراد باهوش دیگه است، برعکس سقراط افلاطون که نابغهای میان افراد نالایقه. خوندن این کتاب بعد از کتاب های افلاطون حس زمانی رو داست که فهمیدم اسب چوبی و جنگی سر زیبایی هلن وجود نداشته، ولی با این حال داستان پایه بر جنگ های بی شمار اون منطقه است. افسانه فرو میریزه و مردی بی نقاب اون وسط میمونه که هنوز هم جالب و لایق تحسینه، اما پیامبری از جانب خدای عقل و خرد نیست.
با این حال هیچکدوم این جملات از ابهت سقراط کم نمیکنه، و خوندن کتاب واقعا لذتی داره که خصوصیت خوندن صحبت های سقراطه.
پ.ن: "خدایان خوش ندارند که انسان از دانشی که خود خدایان آشکار نکردند سر در بیاورد" دوست ندارم تصور کنم چه جوان هایی که میخواستند به هندسه و ستاره شناسی بپردازند به خاطر پندهای سقراط تسلیم شدند. فکر پوچی به نظر میرسه، چون در مقابل این حرف بهقدری دیالکتیک و نقد رو وارد جامعه کرده که مضحکه مو از ماست بیرون کشیدن. احتمالا این جمله به چشمم اومد چون صفحه آخر کتاب نوشته شده بود.
با این حال هیچکدوم این جملات از ابهت سقراط کم نمیکنه، و خوندن کتاب واقعا لذتی داره که خصوصیت خوندن صحبت های سقراطه.
پ.ن: "خدایان خوش ندارند که انسان از دانشی که خود خدایان آشکار نکردند سر در بیاورد" دوست ندارم تصور کنم چه جوان هایی که میخواستند به هندسه و ستاره شناسی بپردازند به خاطر پندهای سقراط تسلیم شدند. فکر پوچی به نظر میرسه، چون در مقابل این حرف بهقدری دیالکتیک و نقد رو وارد جامعه کرده که مضحکه مو از ماست بیرون کشیدن. احتمالا این جمله به چشمم اومد چون صفحه آخر کتاب نوشته شده بود.
January 17, 2014
interesting as an alternate (non-platonic) take on socrates. but mostly it just makes you realize how brilliant plato was. still though, there are a lot of really good lines.
Upon this, Socrates asked him whether he had ever been at Delphi, and Euthydemus answered that he had been there twice.
"Did you not take notice," said Socrates, "that somewhere on the front of the temple there is this inscription, 'Know thyself'?"
"I remember," answered he, "I have read it there."
"It is not enough," replied Socrates, "to have read it."
Upon this, Socrates asked him whether he had ever been at Delphi, and Euthydemus answered that he had been there twice.
"Did you not take notice," said Socrates, "that somewhere on the front of the temple there is this inscription, 'Know thyself'?"
"I remember," answered he, "I have read it there."
"It is not enough," replied Socrates, "to have read it."
August 6, 2012
Ok so Xenophon is no Plato we all know that. I would have still loved this collection anyway though just for the dinner party alone! Who knew Socrates was both the best looking man of the bunch and also apparently the best potential pimp? Yes that is it folks, lets not be fooled, Socrates is the greatest potential pimp of all time. One star lost for the estate manager (although I was surprised to find out how much I too know about agriculture! Perhaps I would also make a good farmer!)
November 23, 2019
In this work one encounters a qualitatively different Socrates from the one found in Plato's dialogues. As Nietzsche observed Plato's Socrates strikes the reader as a fictional creation of Plato rather than a real person. Xenophon's Socrates however has every appearance of being a real person.
Plato's Socrates constantly performs virtuoso acts of dialectical reasoning. Xenophon's Socrates in contrast relies primarily on personally living a life of virtue in order to teach his students how to live the good life. Late in this book Xenophon offers a demonstration of Socratic dialectics which he regards as a secondary tool. In Xenophon's view, Socrates believed that one became a better person by practicing virtue not by logical passe passe.
Plato's Socrates constantly performs virtuoso acts of dialectical reasoning. Xenophon's Socrates in contrast relies primarily on personally living a life of virtue in order to teach his students how to live the good life. Late in this book Xenophon offers a demonstration of Socratic dialectics which he regards as a secondary tool. In Xenophon's view, Socrates believed that one became a better person by practicing virtue not by logical passe passe.
September 21, 2025
دبیرستان که بودم، سقراط از شخصیتهای موردعلاقهم بود؛ شاید چون فکر میکردم میتونم شبیهش باشم.
الآن که میدونم شبیهش نیستم، مدام خودمو جای طرف مقابلش میذارم و میبینم واقعاً اعصابش رو ندارم. :))
کل حرفم دربارهٔ این کتاب همینه.
ممنون که خوندید.💙
۳۰ شهریور ۱۴۰۴
شریف
الآن که میدونم شبیهش نیستم، مدام خودمو جای طرف مقابلش میذارم و میبینم واقعاً اعصابش رو ندارم. :))
کل حرفم دربارهٔ این کتاب همینه.
ممنون که خوندید.💙
۳۰ شهریور ۱۴۰۴
شریف
April 20, 2015
Xenophon gives us an alternative to Plato’s accounts of the lessons of Socrates. As you probably know if you are reading this, Socrates left nothing behind by way of written teachings. All we know of the great philosopher’s teachings come from the accounts of his students. Xenophon’s version (Memorabilia of Socrates) is stylistically different from Plato’s dialogues(e.g. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo), though Socrates’ wisdom and method (questioning) remain consistent.
I enjoyed Plato’s dialogues on the last days of Socrates more than Xenophon’s Memorabilia. This owes to Plato’s narrative approach, which tells us the story of Socrates’ trial, conviction, and execution. Philosophy is more palatable embedded in a story. However, all of these works (Xenophon’s and Plato’s) are short, readable translations, and so it is worth reading all of them to get a broader access to the thoughts of Socrates.
As with Apology, Xenophon conveys Socrates thoughts on piety and corruption of the youth (these were the charges raised against Socrates that resulted in his hemlock sentence.) Socrates maintained that he was pious, but he did think it a weakness to trouble the gods with questions that men should be able to solve for themselves. His emphasis on self-reliance and fortitude is part of why we so respect Socrates. One sees the imprint of Socrates on the school of Stoicism that would come later. In Memorabilia, Socrates openly mocks those men who cannot bear adversity as well as their slaves. (Yes, Socrates wasn’t so infallibly wise as to see the folly of slavery. I no more advocate paleomania [irrational exuberance for old thinkers / ideas] than I do neomania [irrational exuberance for new ideas.] Still, people live in the context of their times, and if one expects a person to be ahead of their time in all aspects, one will be disappointed.)
Socrates discusses governance and politics frequently in this volume. To a large extent, this is by way of trying to convince men that he believed would be good for governance to participate, and convincing those who he believed wouldn’t be effective leaders (e.g. Euthydemus) not to participate. Toward the end of book (part IV) he talks about the various forms of government (e.g. Monarchy, Aristocracy, Plutocracy, Tyranny, and Democracy.) These ideas no doubt informed Plato’s illumination of eight forms of government in The Republic.
What I appreciate most about Socrates was his groundedness and appreciation of the importance of the body. One can read a lot of philosophy without hearing mention of the body (beyond the thought that it might be an illusion created by the program that runs our brain-in-a-vat system.) One gets the idea that proponents of this discipline largely think of the body as a cart that drags around their great, big, lovely brains. Not so with Socrates. In fact, he rebukes philosophers for not taking care of themselves. He mentions the importance of nutrition, exercise, and sleep [this is where he’s ahead of his time.] Also, Socrates recognizes the damage done by having too great an attachment to comfort. (Here one sees an interest point of overlap with Eastern philosophies that derive from yoga--with its niyama of tapas [austerity and self-discipline.] By the way, that isn’t the only correlation between the Eastern and Western mindset we see in Socrates. e.g. At one point, a wealthy man complains about the poor behavior of his servant, to which Socrates asks upon whom this condition should reflect poorly—the master not the servant. Confucius made a similar statement to this one.)
I think this classic is well worth reading. It’s short, readable, and offers a great deal of food for thought. If you don’t have time for multiple accounts of Socrates’ teachings, you might be kept more enthralled by the Platonic dialogues, but surely you can make time for Socrates.
I enjoyed Plato’s dialogues on the last days of Socrates more than Xenophon’s Memorabilia. This owes to Plato’s narrative approach, which tells us the story of Socrates’ trial, conviction, and execution. Philosophy is more palatable embedded in a story. However, all of these works (Xenophon’s and Plato’s) are short, readable translations, and so it is worth reading all of them to get a broader access to the thoughts of Socrates.
As with Apology, Xenophon conveys Socrates thoughts on piety and corruption of the youth (these were the charges raised against Socrates that resulted in his hemlock sentence.) Socrates maintained that he was pious, but he did think it a weakness to trouble the gods with questions that men should be able to solve for themselves. His emphasis on self-reliance and fortitude is part of why we so respect Socrates. One sees the imprint of Socrates on the school of Stoicism that would come later. In Memorabilia, Socrates openly mocks those men who cannot bear adversity as well as their slaves. (Yes, Socrates wasn’t so infallibly wise as to see the folly of slavery. I no more advocate paleomania [irrational exuberance for old thinkers / ideas] than I do neomania [irrational exuberance for new ideas.] Still, people live in the context of their times, and if one expects a person to be ahead of their time in all aspects, one will be disappointed.)
Socrates discusses governance and politics frequently in this volume. To a large extent, this is by way of trying to convince men that he believed would be good for governance to participate, and convincing those who he believed wouldn’t be effective leaders (e.g. Euthydemus) not to participate. Toward the end of book (part IV) he talks about the various forms of government (e.g. Monarchy, Aristocracy, Plutocracy, Tyranny, and Democracy.) These ideas no doubt informed Plato’s illumination of eight forms of government in The Republic.
What I appreciate most about Socrates was his groundedness and appreciation of the importance of the body. One can read a lot of philosophy without hearing mention of the body (beyond the thought that it might be an illusion created by the program that runs our brain-in-a-vat system.) One gets the idea that proponents of this discipline largely think of the body as a cart that drags around their great, big, lovely brains. Not so with Socrates. In fact, he rebukes philosophers for not taking care of themselves. He mentions the importance of nutrition, exercise, and sleep [this is where he’s ahead of his time.] Also, Socrates recognizes the damage done by having too great an attachment to comfort. (Here one sees an interest point of overlap with Eastern philosophies that derive from yoga--with its niyama of tapas [austerity and self-discipline.] By the way, that isn’t the only correlation between the Eastern and Western mindset we see in Socrates. e.g. At one point, a wealthy man complains about the poor behavior of his servant, to which Socrates asks upon whom this condition should reflect poorly—the master not the servant. Confucius made a similar statement to this one.)
I think this classic is well worth reading. It’s short, readable, and offers a great deal of food for thought. If you don’t have time for multiple accounts of Socrates’ teachings, you might be kept more enthralled by the Platonic dialogues, but surely you can make time for Socrates.
December 4, 2012
I love Xenophon. He is a rare breed: philosopher, soldier, historian and mercenary. I imagine him as a 4th century BC combination of Teddy Roosevelt and William T. Vollmann. Memorabilia is a nice piece to read along with Plato's dialogues. While Plato's remembrances of Socrates are more philosophic and cerebral, Xenophon presents a slightly different and more down to earth picture of the great ethical philosopher.
February 23, 2023
گفت «عجب دارم از کسی که چوبانی گلهٔ گاوان را به عهده گرفته است و با اینکه گاوها روز به روز ناتوانتر میشوند و عدهشان کمتر، باز آماده نیست اعتراف کند که چوپانی نادان است. بدتر از او کسی است که زمام جامعهای را به دست دارد و مردمان را روز به روز بدتر و تعدادشان را کمتر میکند و با این همه شرم ندارد و نمیپذیردکه زمامداری نادان و فاسد است. 3.5
November 24, 2014
"Existem,na espécie humana,seres inferiores aos outros,tal como o animal em relação ao Homem.A guerra é um meio legítimo de adquirir escravos.Uma família completa compõe-se de homens livre e escravos."
June 20, 2023
pretty good book. long review is to come later in the summer. I enjoyed this book. It was one of the harder books ive read recently, one of the first philosophy books ive ever read, and because of that i am pretty new to the whole looking at a page for 30 minutes trying to make something out of it. Never the less it was a really interesting read, i got to learn a lot about socrates and his peers alike as well as a lot of historical information about how people used to live back in the day.
good book. 3.7/5
good book. 3.7/5
March 7, 2024
Xenophon's Socrates is too much of a goody two-shoes to have anything interesting to say. Nor does he possess any of the philosophical depth or the literary flair of Plato's Socrates. I'd go so far as to say that if it were not for Plato's dialogues, Socrates would barely be remembered today, much less considered an important thinker in the history of philosophy, if we only had Xenophon and Aristophanes' representations of him. The only value I could see in this text was historical, and in some cool passages on sense-restraint, but that gets old very soon if you're out of your young male 'stoic' phase - that reminds me, Xenophon's Socrates can be seen as an important bridge in connecting Socrates to the later stoics, since he's all about restraining yourself, not being a slave to the body, enjoying poverty, yada yada - I'm not saying that that's bad advice, I'm just saying that it's no fun to read, especially when you're already doing most of that (whether voluntarily or not...)
March 1, 2017
Xenophon’s Conversations of Socrates is a great addition to the home library of any lover of Socratic philosophy. Xenophon’s work can easily be described as four books within a book. His four topics include Socrates’ Defense, Memoirs of Socrates, The Dinner-Party, and Estate Manager. Xenophon is no Plato but most believe that the image we receive from Plato is the only portrait of Socrates. It then would only make logical sense to have Xenophon’s image as well. A must read and great asset along-side Plato’s portrait of the greatest philosopher to walk the earth.
October 5, 2013
I seem to be in the minority here, but in many ways I prefer Xenophon to Plato. This book was a breath of fresh air. His simple pragmatism makes him sound like someone I'd want to be friends with, invite to dinner or the ilk. Apparently he's not for everyone, but he has my vote.
October 2, 2010
Socrates is by no means the exclusive property of Plato: Xenophon also wrote well, if not quite so brilliantly as Plato, but reflecting his own more common-sensical and conventional approach to life.
This collection consists of four works:
(1) Socrates' Defence, probably the weakest work, shows only that Xenophon could never rise to the heights that Plato did with Apology and Phaedo. It is still of interest because, like Socrates, Xenophon was clearly of the oligarchical party and thought the philosopher got a raw deal.
(2) Memoirs of Socrates is a series of short dialogues, in more or less random order, showing a Socrates that is more an apostle of common sense than a deep philosopher.
(3) The star of the collection is Xenophon's The Dinner-Party, his answer to Plato's Symposium, and a good deal more fun to read.
(4) Finally, there is The Estate-Manager, in which Xenophon shows how kingship, military leadership, and agriculture are closely allied.
As Robin Waterfield, the co-translator, writes in his excellent introduction, Xenophon deserves to be read more, if only to show that Socrates caught the imagination of the Ancient Greeks in more ways than just one.
This collection consists of four works:
(1) Socrates' Defence, probably the weakest work, shows only that Xenophon could never rise to the heights that Plato did with Apology and Phaedo. It is still of interest because, like Socrates, Xenophon was clearly of the oligarchical party and thought the philosopher got a raw deal.
(2) Memoirs of Socrates is a series of short dialogues, in more or less random order, showing a Socrates that is more an apostle of common sense than a deep philosopher.
(3) The star of the collection is Xenophon's The Dinner-Party, his answer to Plato's Symposium, and a good deal more fun to read.
(4) Finally, there is The Estate-Manager, in which Xenophon shows how kingship, military leadership, and agriculture are closely allied.
As Robin Waterfield, the co-translator, writes in his excellent introduction, Xenophon deserves to be read more, if only to show that Socrates caught the imagination of the Ancient Greeks in more ways than just one.
May 5, 2015
Boethius should be ashamed for writing that load of crap 'consoaltion of philosophy' 800 years after Socrates, and adding nothing new or original to the discussion. Both guys died, but I feel like Boethius only found consolation in philosophy after he was already sentenced to death. As you will see from reading 'The Memorable thoughts of Socrates' the eponymous philosopher lived a life of virtue and justice, so dying according to the laws of his country suited him just fine. (there were some other reasons he was ok with his death sentence, but you should read the book to find out)
What made this book really easy to read and accessible was Xenophon's spartan writing style, which translates very well into modern language. I did not feel bored or confused at any point, Socrates always seems to get to the point rather quickly, and makes his points well.
I recommend this book to all.
Also I really enjoyed reading this in the context of all the myths and legends I have been reading recently. Socrates and Xenophon lived in an ancient society and this book is a window on our distant past.
What made this book really easy to read and accessible was Xenophon's spartan writing style, which translates very well into modern language. I did not feel bored or confused at any point, Socrates always seems to get to the point rather quickly, and makes his points well.
I recommend this book to all.
Also I really enjoyed reading this in the context of all the myths and legends I have been reading recently. Socrates and Xenophon lived in an ancient society and this book is a window on our distant past.
August 16, 2022
In Defense of Morality
12 August 2022 – Oxford
Originally this was going to be my Canterbury review, however it turned out to be much longer than I expected, and I had left the collection of Lovecraft short stories back at the hotel, so I didn’t get around to actually reading, and then writing, anything in Canterbury. Oh well, maybe another time, if I manage to get back there. However, it turned out to be a pretty good Oxford Book, even though the editor and translator were actually from Cambridge. Still, being a university town, reading some Ancient Greek philosophy seemed to be somewhat appropriate.
One thing that stood out, that sort of made me wonder what the editors were talking about, was that there was no mention of the purpose of the book in the introduction. This was a little odd considering that Xenophon clearly spells this out at the beginning and the end. Sure, there is a lot of Socratic philosophy in these pages (which shouldn’t surprise anybody considering that it is called ‘
The Memoirs of Socrates’), but Xenophon opens by stating that this work’s purpose is to prove that Socrates was not guilty of the crimes for which he was executed, but rather that it was his enemies that were looking for an excuse to do him in.
In the end, this work isn’t going to convince anybody who is dead set against Socrates, in much the same way that arguing with somebody who is dead set in their ways isn’t going to change their minds (I was going to say ‘arguing with an idiot’, but some people tend to have good reasons for being set in their ways, though there are others that, well, you just want to walk away from because you are doing more damage to your sanity than anything else). Actually, Xenophon points this out in one of his anecdotes, namely that we shouldn’t argue with people to change our opponent’s mind but instead change the mind on those who are listening to the debate. In fact, I believe this is the whole point of the debate, not to convince the otherside, but to convince the audience.
There are some interesting things that come out of this text, and some of them no doubt will make people rather uncomfortable. I’m not going to mention them here (though these issues also arise in The Symposium) except to say that, well, these are issues that we assume go without saying, yet in this text, and in the Platonic texts, there is a debate as to whether they are right or not. It makes you realise how much we don’t know about Ancient Athens. Like, homosexuality was a big thing, though it was vastly different than what we have today. There certainly were lovers (Achilles and Patroclus is a clear example), but they didn’t marry and have children (or adopt children as the case may be). It was also an incredibly patriarchal society, so women hardly got a mention.
We see a lot of Xenophon’s military background coming to play here. In fact this is one of the first topics (the other being sex). The suggestion, which we see in Plato as well, is the concern about how completely incompetent people can be elected to high positions. Actually, I don’t think there is a real solution because we can’t take away the right to vote from people who don’t have an education, namely because even if one has an education doesn’t mean that they will wisely cast their vote, nor will an uneducated person unwisely cast their vote. In fact, there is an awful lot of educated people that will be charmed by a demagogue, as well as quite a few educated people that don’t care about voting, and have no interest in finding out about the candidates, or even turning up at the voting booth.
Yet they do have a point – only highly skilled carpenters become master carpenters, and you need some pretty good qualifications to get there. However, to become a politician all you need to do is convince people to vote for you. In fact, to become Prime Minister all you need to do is convince the party room to vote for you. The problem is that completely incompetent people end up getting elected. Here in Australia we had to put up with some advertising executive (that wasn’t particularly good in any case) make announcements for the entire time he was in office, but do absolutely noting. After his tenure came to an end, he chucked a hissy fit and blamed pretty much everybody for voting him out because he was a half-decent person and the population didn’t appreciate how good they had it under him. In fact, he now sits on the backbench with a foul look on his face (though I find it interesting that despite being a pentacostal Christian, that he isn’t asking any questions as to why God might have deserted him).
Still, we can’t forget that in Ancient Athens the military leaders were also elected, which I have to admit seems like that is only going to lead to endless amounts of trouble. I was going to suggest imagining DT being elected into such a position until I realised that he was actually commander in chief. Mind you, if the generals end up screwing up, they also ended up being put on trial, and if found guilty of incompetence, then the penalty was generally death. I guess with that hanging over your head would probably provide a disincentive for demagogues from taking over the army, but honestly, when have laws and penalties ever stopped people from being dodgy?
However, I would have to say that this work differs significantly from that of Plato, one thing being that Xenophon was a general whereas Plato was a teacher. Still, while people might not consider Xenophon to be anywhere in the league of Plato, we do need to remember that the nature of this work is twofold – first of all it is a defence of Socrates and of his teaching, and secondly it is a means of preserving what Socrates taught down through the millennium. It is clear that Xenophon held Socrates in high regard, though he might not have been associating with him for as long as Plato was. Still, it is an interesting work, and does give us a different view on much of his teachings.
12 August 2022 – Oxford
Originally this was going to be my Canterbury review, however it turned out to be much longer than I expected, and I had left the collection of Lovecraft short stories back at the hotel, so I didn’t get around to actually reading, and then writing, anything in Canterbury. Oh well, maybe another time, if I manage to get back there. However, it turned out to be a pretty good Oxford Book, even though the editor and translator were actually from Cambridge. Still, being a university town, reading some Ancient Greek philosophy seemed to be somewhat appropriate.
One thing that stood out, that sort of made me wonder what the editors were talking about, was that there was no mention of the purpose of the book in the introduction. This was a little odd considering that Xenophon clearly spells this out at the beginning and the end. Sure, there is a lot of Socratic philosophy in these pages (which shouldn’t surprise anybody considering that it is called ‘
The Memoirs of Socrates’), but Xenophon opens by stating that this work’s purpose is to prove that Socrates was not guilty of the crimes for which he was executed, but rather that it was his enemies that were looking for an excuse to do him in.
In the end, this work isn’t going to convince anybody who is dead set against Socrates, in much the same way that arguing with somebody who is dead set in their ways isn’t going to change their minds (I was going to say ‘arguing with an idiot’, but some people tend to have good reasons for being set in their ways, though there are others that, well, you just want to walk away from because you are doing more damage to your sanity than anything else). Actually, Xenophon points this out in one of his anecdotes, namely that we shouldn’t argue with people to change our opponent’s mind but instead change the mind on those who are listening to the debate. In fact, I believe this is the whole point of the debate, not to convince the otherside, but to convince the audience.
There are some interesting things that come out of this text, and some of them no doubt will make people rather uncomfortable. I’m not going to mention them here (though these issues also arise in The Symposium) except to say that, well, these are issues that we assume go without saying, yet in this text, and in the Platonic texts, there is a debate as to whether they are right or not. It makes you realise how much we don’t know about Ancient Athens. Like, homosexuality was a big thing, though it was vastly different than what we have today. There certainly were lovers (Achilles and Patroclus is a clear example), but they didn’t marry and have children (or adopt children as the case may be). It was also an incredibly patriarchal society, so women hardly got a mention.
We see a lot of Xenophon’s military background coming to play here. In fact this is one of the first topics (the other being sex). The suggestion, which we see in Plato as well, is the concern about how completely incompetent people can be elected to high positions. Actually, I don’t think there is a real solution because we can’t take away the right to vote from people who don’t have an education, namely because even if one has an education doesn’t mean that they will wisely cast their vote, nor will an uneducated person unwisely cast their vote. In fact, there is an awful lot of educated people that will be charmed by a demagogue, as well as quite a few educated people that don’t care about voting, and have no interest in finding out about the candidates, or even turning up at the voting booth.
Yet they do have a point – only highly skilled carpenters become master carpenters, and you need some pretty good qualifications to get there. However, to become a politician all you need to do is convince people to vote for you. In fact, to become Prime Minister all you need to do is convince the party room to vote for you. The problem is that completely incompetent people end up getting elected. Here in Australia we had to put up with some advertising executive (that wasn’t particularly good in any case) make announcements for the entire time he was in office, but do absolutely noting. After his tenure came to an end, he chucked a hissy fit and blamed pretty much everybody for voting him out because he was a half-decent person and the population didn’t appreciate how good they had it under him. In fact, he now sits on the backbench with a foul look on his face (though I find it interesting that despite being a pentacostal Christian, that he isn’t asking any questions as to why God might have deserted him).
Still, we can’t forget that in Ancient Athens the military leaders were also elected, which I have to admit seems like that is only going to lead to endless amounts of trouble. I was going to suggest imagining DT being elected into such a position until I realised that he was actually commander in chief. Mind you, if the generals end up screwing up, they also ended up being put on trial, and if found guilty of incompetence, then the penalty was generally death. I guess with that hanging over your head would probably provide a disincentive for demagogues from taking over the army, but honestly, when have laws and penalties ever stopped people from being dodgy?
However, I would have to say that this work differs significantly from that of Plato, one thing being that Xenophon was a general whereas Plato was a teacher. Still, while people might not consider Xenophon to be anywhere in the league of Plato, we do need to remember that the nature of this work is twofold – first of all it is a defence of Socrates and of his teaching, and secondly it is a means of preserving what Socrates taught down through the millennium. It is clear that Xenophon held Socrates in high regard, though he might not have been associating with him for as long as Plato was. Still, it is an interesting work, and does give us a different view on much of his teachings.
March 25, 2016
Plato was not the only one who wrote about Socrates. And this gives a rather different view. . . .
Not in Socratic method. That's one thing that is unquestionably constant. But while Xenophon's Socrates does talk about virtue, he talks differently than Plato's. Also, he deals at a much more practical level. For instance, in one discussion, he talks a man into providing for his crowds of female relatives by putting them to work making textiles. Indeed, the last of the documents is nothing except talking about how to manage an estate.
Not in Socratic method. That's one thing that is unquestionably constant. But while Xenophon's Socrates does talk about virtue, he talks differently than Plato's. Also, he deals at a much more practical level. For instance, in one discussion, he talks a man into providing for his crowds of female relatives by putting them to work making textiles. Indeed, the last of the documents is nothing except talking about how to manage an estate.
June 24, 2022
This was an okay read.
I wasn’t too impressed with it.
I didn’t find it the best philosophy in my opinion.
3.4/5
I wasn’t too impressed with it.
I didn’t find it the best philosophy in my opinion.
3.4/5
February 28, 2023
Muito melhor do que eu imaginava. Transmite uma imagem de Sócrates que é congruente com a platônica, mas, sem a idealização, acaba soando mais humana.
July 16, 2017
I must begin by stating that I agree with what Kierkegaard writes in his Concept of Irony - that the quaint Xenophon fails to understand Socrates; that he delivers a surface portrait even of his thought, but fails to cut into the negative heart of this thought, wherein lies the import of Socrates as a figure (for ancient Athens and for all of history). Plato does much better at addressing this thoughtful import over the splay of his dialogues (though he does of course at times (mis)use the figure of Socrates for his own ends; but who is to say that Xenophon, with his pragmatic interests in estates and morality, did not do the same in turn.
Xenophon displays only the positive side of what we know of Socrates' thought - his ideas on recollection and self-discipline, for example. But his Socrates spends much time espousing a positive doctrine, which is in direct opposition to the Socrates that Plato portrays ( the Socrates of his Apology especially). Socrates' wisdom was that he knew nothing - and this incited his incessant questioning; his search which is his very wisdom. Socrates' negativity opened up different avenues for interpreting or thinking the simply positive or posited.
As Waterfield notes in his introduction, Socrates was a revolutionary figure; "he trained people to be individuals" (36). He did so through his subversive questioning, which negated or worked against the law, the state, and thus the whole or the general, in the name of freedom and individuality, or difference. This Socrates, that is, the thinker as questioner, fails to appear in Xenophon's texts. Thus, with Kierkegaard, do I find that Xenophon only grasped the positive aspect of Socrates, and failed to really ascertain the true greatness of the man, or rather, of his thought. Xenophon's Socrates is no revolutionary; he, and the texts in which he is portrayed, are rather dull.
Xenophon displays only the positive side of what we know of Socrates' thought - his ideas on recollection and self-discipline, for example. But his Socrates spends much time espousing a positive doctrine, which is in direct opposition to the Socrates that Plato portrays ( the Socrates of his Apology especially). Socrates' wisdom was that he knew nothing - and this incited his incessant questioning; his search which is his very wisdom. Socrates' negativity opened up different avenues for interpreting or thinking the simply positive or posited.
As Waterfield notes in his introduction, Socrates was a revolutionary figure; "he trained people to be individuals" (36). He did so through his subversive questioning, which negated or worked against the law, the state, and thus the whole or the general, in the name of freedom and individuality, or difference. This Socrates, that is, the thinker as questioner, fails to appear in Xenophon's texts. Thus, with Kierkegaard, do I find that Xenophon only grasped the positive aspect of Socrates, and failed to really ascertain the true greatness of the man, or rather, of his thought. Xenophon's Socrates is no revolutionary; he, and the texts in which he is portrayed, are rather dull.
March 19, 2012
Obviously, the book is not a literary piece, but it fed my curiousity for the Philosopher who taught and influenced the equally great minds who were: Plato and Aristotle (who in turn tutored Alexander the Great).
Known as one of the founders of Western Philosophy, Socrates was well-remembered for the Socratic method which consisted in a series of questions to find the truth; lawyers use this. And who wouldn't know the saying: I only know that I know nothing, by which he acknowledges his limitations. However, it only showed that he was a notch higher than the rest.
Because he did not write philosophical texts, Xenophon wrote the book presenting the thoughts of his great teacher.
In general, Socrates' teachings were morally, intellectually, and politically at odds with his fellow Athenians. For his attempts to improve Athenian's sense of justice, he was condemned as a heretic.
Sentenced to die, for corrupting the minds of the youth and not believing in the Gods of the Republic, he did not attempt to escape, even if he had the chance to do so, his reason being, it was the right time for him to die; if he lived, he won't be able to take the rigors of old age. Also, that if he died on that occasion, he was positively certain that his memory will be honored than those who condemned him. True enough, until today, his philosophy, is relevant.
Known as one of the founders of Western Philosophy, Socrates was well-remembered for the Socratic method which consisted in a series of questions to find the truth; lawyers use this. And who wouldn't know the saying: I only know that I know nothing, by which he acknowledges his limitations. However, it only showed that he was a notch higher than the rest.
Because he did not write philosophical texts, Xenophon wrote the book presenting the thoughts of his great teacher.
In general, Socrates' teachings were morally, intellectually, and politically at odds with his fellow Athenians. For his attempts to improve Athenian's sense of justice, he was condemned as a heretic.
Sentenced to die, for corrupting the minds of the youth and not believing in the Gods of the Republic, he did not attempt to escape, even if he had the chance to do so, his reason being, it was the right time for him to die; if he lived, he won't be able to take the rigors of old age. Also, that if he died on that occasion, he was positively certain that his memory will be honored than those who condemned him. True enough, until today, his philosophy, is relevant.
October 9, 2015
Socrates is basically the father of modern thinking. I still need to read Plato's version of Socrates, but started with Xenophon not knowing much of the difference between both.
The book contains introductory chapters to each book. Sometimes I feel that they extended a little too much but all in all, these chapters gave a clear view of life in Greece in those times, Socrates' train of thought and so on.
You must read the book not focusing only on the main topic of a conversation, but on the analysis that Socrates does on any possible topic. As an example, don't take "The State Manager" as a book on agriculture, but on discipline and education.
The main problem I faced is that this is a little dense at times. Also, at some points I have to admit I ended up hating Mr. S, because the portarit of him sometimes is of a nosey old man that liked to judge people. Nothing farther than the truth, of course but gets to happen.
Keep in mind that society was very different, specially with the passages on the place of women and men. Some people can cringe to it.
All in all, I am thankful for having read this book, as it allowed me to develop a more critical and ordered thinking. It gets to touch the way you analyse things and that you deal with others in a day to day.
It is highly recommended but know you will take a while to read and completely enjoy it.
The book contains introductory chapters to each book. Sometimes I feel that they extended a little too much but all in all, these chapters gave a clear view of life in Greece in those times, Socrates' train of thought and so on.
You must read the book not focusing only on the main topic of a conversation, but on the analysis that Socrates does on any possible topic. As an example, don't take "The State Manager" as a book on agriculture, but on discipline and education.
The main problem I faced is that this is a little dense at times. Also, at some points I have to admit I ended up hating Mr. S, because the portarit of him sometimes is of a nosey old man that liked to judge people. Nothing farther than the truth, of course but gets to happen.
Keep in mind that society was very different, specially with the passages on the place of women and men. Some people can cringe to it.
All in all, I am thankful for having read this book, as it allowed me to develop a more critical and ordered thinking. It gets to touch the way you analyse things and that you deal with others in a day to day.
It is highly recommended but know you will take a while to read and completely enjoy it.
February 10, 2021
Not a very good companion to Plato's works, or to Greek history at large. Xenophon, perhaps history's first midwit, seemed to have been impressed from his association with Socrates but generally unimproved; his presentation of Socrates does not seem fundamentally different from the logic of the sophists, and his understanding of the disputes against Socrates seems merely to have been that Socrates advocated a more pragmatic, Spartan virtue as opposed to compliance to Athenian democracy (against whom Xenophon was also pretty bad at arguing). The similarities to Plato's works are relatively superficial, and because both Xenophon and Plato appear to have had strong personal and political parapraxes guiding their presentation of Socrates this book only opens more questions about Socrates than it answers. A couple of amusing anecdotes are scattered throughout, like Crito's friend who goes around defending people on the streets in exchange for a place to live and the farmer's wife in Oikonomokos, but they're sewn pretty widely across dialogues full of practical advice shorn of their practicality on account of their author's apparent eagerness but inability to recreate the Socratic 'dunk'.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 175 reviews